Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S.SISTANI, SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
STATE - Petitioner
Versus
LAL BABU MAHTO - Respondent
CRL.L.P. 702/2015
Decided on : 10-3-2016
Indian Penal Code - Section 376(2)(f) - The accused was charged with the offence punishable under this section, which deals with rape of a woman under 12 years of age. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the sole eye witness, the mother of the victim. The High Court analyzed the witness's testimony and found it to be unreliable and untrustworthy. The High Court also considered the defence witnesses, who supported the accused's version of events. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was acquitted of charges under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the sole eye witness, the mother of the victim. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding the witness's testimony unreliable and untrustworthy. The State filed a leave to appeal petition contending that the Trial Court's decision was manifestly perverse and resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The respondent argued that the Trial Court's decision was correct. The High Court found that the witness's testimony was unreliable and dismissed the leave to appeal petition.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court analyzed the testimony of the sole eye witness and found it to be unreliable and untrustworthy. The witness's conduct, delay in lodging the FIR, and lack of corroboration from medical evidence raised doubts about the veracity of her testimony. The High Court also considered the testimony of the defence witnesses, who supported the accused's version of events. The High Court held that the Trial Court's decision was correct and there was no reason to interfere with it.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the testimony of a sole witness can form the basis of a conviction if it is reliable and trustworthy. However, in this case, the witness's testimony was found to be unreliable and untrustworthy due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and unusual conduct. The High Court emphasized that the quality of evidence is more important than the number of witnesses. The High Court also held that delay in lodging the FIR, without a satisfactory explanation, can raise doubts about the prosecution's case. The High Court concluded that the Trial Court's decision to acquit the accused was correct and dismissed the leave to appeal petition.
Result: The High Court dismissed the leave to appeal petition and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
CRL.MA.15876/2015
1. By the present application, the petitioner seeks condonation of 100 days' delay in filing the present criminal leave to appeal petition.
2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice, present application is allowed. Delay in filing the present criminal leave to appeal petition is condoned. Let criminal leave to appeal petition be taken on record.
3. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.L.P.702/2015
4. Present leave to appeal petition has been filed by the State under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 13.04.2015 passed by Ms. Renu Bhatnagar, Additional Sessions Judge-01, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Session’s Case No.75/12 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges framed under Section 376 (2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The brief facts of this case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court are as under:
"On 11.08.2012 DD No. 10 A was received by SI Satish Kumar who along with Ct. Dinkar More reached at the spot i.e. Dairy Farm Madanpur Khadar Sarita Vihar where they came to know that rape has been committed with a 8 months old baby girl. SHO also reached at the spot and SI Josepha Kujur was called who reached at the spot and recorded the statement of complainant who stated that she is residing as tenant along with her family and running raidi. She has two daughters namely Jia aged about 3.5 years and prosecutrix 'R' (name withheld to keep her identity confidential) aged about 8 months. On 09.08.2012 at around 10 PM she along with her husband and daughters came to home and went to terrace for keeping utensils. She sent her husband for taking potatoes. She came downstairs to feed her daughter Jia as she was crying for food. Her daughter 'R' was sitting on the terrace and playing. On the terrace her neighbour Lal Babu aged about 30 years was also present. At 11 PM when she came to terrace she saw accused Lal Babu playing with her daughter 'R' and holding her in his lap. While playing he took her inside his room and after some time she heard cries of her daughter 'R' and she came to the room of accused Lal Babu. She saw that Lal Babu was not wearing his pant, holding her daughter hand 'R' and he was rubbing the vagina of her daughter 'R' with his penis by shaking her daughter 'R' who was not wearing her Kacchi. On seeing her, he put her daughter 'R' on the floor, discharged his semen on a piece of paper and threw it outside. She took her daughter and came to her room. She disclosed the entire fact to her husband. They did not report the matter to anyone due to fear of Lal Babu. After gathering courage she called the police on 100 number. On the complaint, case was registered. Prosecutrix 'R' was medically examined at AIIMS Hospital. Accused was arrested and he was also got medically examined from AIIMS Hospital. Exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini for examination. Bone age examination of prosecutrix 'R' was also got conducted wherein her date of birth came between 1 to 2 years. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were got recorded by the Investigating Officer and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 376 IPC was filed against the accused in the Court.
6. Upon committal of the case to the court of Sessions, the respondent was charged with having committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty to the charged offence and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate the accusation, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in all. Statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Three witnesses were examined in defence.
8. The learned Trial Court, upon analysis, examination and evaluation of the prosecution evidence and after considering the rival submissions recorded the acquittal of the accused for the charged offence.
9. Aggrieved b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
